campus_research_search_index

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results are 'ranked page snippets as discovery leads, not scientific conclusions' and it instructs the agent to verify excerpts before citing. It could still say more about pagination or empty-result behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the dependency, then the caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the sentences are packed and could be split for scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations gap on safety, the description supplies the critical missing knowledge: the upstream dependency, the ledger/analysisId linkage, and the required verification mindset. It stops short of documenting the other three parameters or return shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers analysisId semantics well (passed from index_pdf to keep the ledger separate), but says nothing about documentId, query, or limit. Partial compensation earns a mid score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb+resource: 'Search a completed PDF index by meaningful words.' It implies a prior indexing step and names a dependency (index_pdf via analysisId). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling search/read tools (campus_research_search, campus_research_read_indexed_pdf), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies usage ('Search a completed PDF index', 'Pass analysisId from index_pdf') but never states when to choose this over siblings like campus_research_read_indexed_pdf or campus_research_search. Prerequisites are hinted, not specified as exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.